As the war in Iraq grows more unpopular with increasing number of Americans, Democrats in collusion with the liberal mainstream media, continue to politicize the war by distorting the facts.

Claim that President Bush lied about WMD in order to implement a grand strategy by neo-cons well before he took office supposedly aimed at using military force to install democratic regimes friendly to the U.S. throughout the Middle East.

However, the left has never adequately answered the following question. If Bush knew there was no WMD, why would he send 150,000 troops into Iraq since his lie would be immediately exposed by invading coalition forces and reported by a large contingent of media embedded within those forces?

Liberals also choose to ignore United Nations Resolution 144I,approved unanimously by the UN member nations. which clearly established that Iraq had WMD.

The liberal argument is discredited by comments by Democrats in Congress about the threat posed by Saddam WMD program put forth in a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry and others on Oct.9, 1998

 December will mark three years since UN inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue and Saddam is doubtless using cover of an illicit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."

"Theres no question Saddam Hussein is a threat and has chemical and biological weapons, as far as we know, is actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesnt have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we."Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

Once the insurgency began to take a toll on American lives,the mainstream media conspired with the democrats to question President Bush's reasonable concern about Iraq's program to develop WMDs (given the history of Saddam's denial and evasion of specific locations for inspection, the evidence from US intelligence as well U.N. weapons inspectors who went to the Tuwaitha nuclear facility 30 miles outside of Baghdad to see if all the uranium inventoried during the last inspection in February was still there.) The facility was left unguarded in the early days of the war, and many officials say villagers looted much of the property.

The arrival of the team - whose members were not weapons inspectors - marked the first time since the Iraq war began that representatives from the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency returned to the country. "Inspectors showed there was plenty of evidence to suggest they had weapons," a senior official told Fox News, refering to intelligence that the Iraqis were moving things around in preparation for a coming war. " You don't move things around and disperse them if you don't have them."

Its my understanding that the final report of the inspectors does list approximately 500 weapons of mass destruction that were found in Iraq, after the US invasion. This begs the further question; why does the left continue to also lie about no WMD being found.

Or the Al Qa’qaa industrial complex, part of Saddam's nuclear program, where the HE lenses for the nuclear bombs were made. IIRC, this was the facility that the IAEA said was being repaired and added on to by unnamed contractors (IMO France, Russia or both) Also, the facility had stockpiles (hundreds of tons) of the explosives HMX and RDX used for the nuclear bomb project under UN seal. When they returned over much of it was missing and Saddam henchmen said the just used some for mining. Why do we trust the persons we sanction?

21
posted on 05/24/2008 10:30:20 PM PDT
by endthematrix
(Now that we use our corn for fuel, when do we eat coal for dinner?)

I read a multipage report on the weapons at the time of the invasion. One quarter was destroyed in front of the U.N. inspectors. One quarter was farmed out to Middle Eastern “neighbors”. One quarter was sent to Syria at the time of the invasion and the last quarter was sent to Russia in exchange for antitank weaponry. [One of our tanks was drilled right through the hull using the Russian weapons and the results and pictures was posted on FR. At the time, we thought it was friendly fire. The pictures showed a two inch hole that went straight through the tank like something out of a cartoon.]

It was the reason why there were no tanker trucks available for water after the invasion for the relief efforts after the surrender. The tankers were washed out with gasoline to clean out the chemicals.

However, and this is a big however. None of the chemicals of mass destruction were ready with a delivery system and it had a very short shelf life. The intend was to destroy the evidence and they succeeded. The chemicals delivered to Syria were buried in long trenches just inside the border.

"We have documentary evidence about orders from the leadership to preserve a strategic [chemical weapons] capability... That means to keep the production equipment ready to produce at any given moment. UNSCOM uncovered work on the nerve gas VX and says that 3,000 kilograms of VX is missing." ~ Rolf Ekeus, head of UNSCOM, June 1997 right before he was kicked out of Iraq by Saddam.

"UNSCOM has shown that it is very, very easy to conceal this sort of thing." ~ Creena Lavery, special assistant to the director of UNSCOM, July 1997.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." ~ President Clinton, February. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction..." ~ President Bill Clinton, February 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from (here), but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use neuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." ~ Sec. State Madeline Albright, February 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." ~ National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, February 18, 1998.

"The Iraqi government, the officials, had lied consistently about their having chemical and biological weapons.... they said we don't have any biological weapons. Then, of course, we found out that they had some 2100 gallons of anthrax... They said we don't have any chemical weapons and we found they had four tons of VX... They're also developing something called ricin...which is a deadly poison for which there is no antidote." ~ Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen, April 2, 1998

"We urge you... to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missle strikes on suspect Iraqi sights) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." ~ Senators Tom Daschle, Carl Levin, and others October 9, 1998 in a letter to then-President Clinton.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." ~ Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, December 16, 1998.

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." ~ Scott Ritter, Former United Nations Weapons Inspector, December 21, 1998.

"There is no doubt that... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." ~ Senator Joe Lieberman, D-CT December 5, 2001, in a letter to President GW Bush.

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." ~ Senator Joe Lieberman, D-CT August, 2002

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." ~ Senator Carl Levin D-MI, September 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." ~ Al Gore, September 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven immpossible to... deter, and we should assume that it will continue as long as Saddam is in power." ~ Al Gore, September 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." ~ Senator Ted Kennedy, D-MA, September 27, 2002.

"We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability." ~ Senator Robert Byrd, D-WV, October 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the president of the U. S. the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsonal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." ~ Senator John F. Kerry, D-MA, October 9, 2002.

"He has systematically violated... every significant U.N. resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons... this he has refused to do." ~ Senator Henry Waxman, D-CA, October 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weap ons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." ~ Senator Hillary Clinton, D-NY, October 10, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop neuclear weapons and will likely have neuclear weapons within the next 5 years.....we also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." ~ Senator Jay Rockafeller, D-WV, October 10, 2002.

"We are in possession of... compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has... capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." ~ Senator Bob Graham, D-FL, Dec. 8, 2002.

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein... he is miscalculating America's response to his... grasp for weapons of mass destruction... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." ~ Senator John F. Kerry, D-MA, January 23, 2003. And finally...

"Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 litres of this biological warfare agent [Anthrax], which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction. There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared, and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date. It might still exist. There are also indications that the agent [VX nerve gas] was weaponised. In addition, there are questions to be answered concerning the fate of the VX precursor chemicals... ...inspectors have found at another site a laboratory quantity of thiodiglycol, a mustard gas precursor. In addition, Iraq has refurbished its missile production infrastructure. In particular, Iraq reconstituted a number of casting chambers, which had previously been destroyed under UNSCOM supervision." ~ Hans Blix, Report to UN Security Council, January 27, 2003.

Amazing video (linked below) of Al Gore tirade against George Bush, Sr. for not recognizing Saddam’s support for terrorism and pursuit of WMDs!!! This is a flashback to Sept. 1992, and apologists for the Demagogues will say it’s not relevant to the issues in the 21st century, but I beg to differ. Here we have Al Gore as VP candidate attacking Bush, Sr. for being too soft on Saddam. Gore repeatedly emphasizes the grave threats posed by Saddam’s sponsorship of terrorism and his pursuit of WMDs. Through every moment of this video I am sickened at the flip-flopping of leading Demagogues such as Al Gore, who since 2003 have savagely turned on our President in wartime, for purely partisan ends. Check it out, this is amazing:

Check out amazing video linked at #29 - Al Gore sounding remarkably like a “neo-con” way back in 1992, blasting Pres. Bush, Sr. for not recognizing sooner Saddam’s sponsorhips of terrorist groups and pursuit of WMDs. Just another reminder that the leading Demagogues are all shameless, vile, loathsome hypocritical reptiles.

Yep, lying for political gain is a Democrat tradition. In this instance, they were completely onboard until the war became the slightest bit unpopular, then they saw an opening to undermine the President. They covered their sorry butts with a Big Lie, and the media, and to a lesser extent the Bush administration, have let them get away with it.

37
posted on 05/25/2008 5:31:54 AM PDT
by LadyNavyVet
("No more of those candidates who are pledged to the same goals as our opposition ..." Ronald Reagan)

I once used this stuff to get some liberal Bush haters (and rabid antiwar asswipes) to admit that there were WMDs in Iraq. It ultimately made no difference. I argued that the shells noted above had the potential to kill several million (can't remember the exact number extrapolated out by size and effectiveness), the liberal reply was basically that "That is laughable".

The cannot see reason or logic, it interferes with the fairy tales in their heads...

38
posted on 05/25/2008 5:56:20 AM PDT
by xmission
(Democrats have killed our Soldiers by rewarding the enemy for brutality)

I sat and listened to the disgusting Alan Colmes the other evening screaming about the “no weapons found in Iraq” - I was amazed at his furor that was substantiated by that cretin of crap, Phil Donohue, the hatred bubbles just under the surface of these America haters, no one challenges their lies, even Sean was silent in listening to their two tirades, disgraceful Colmes should be kicked off the air, he is a whining and sicko liar!

41
posted on 05/25/2008 8:16:14 AM PDT
by Rockiette
(Democrats are not intelligent)

Ditto. There have been numerous articles posted on FR and other conservative sites listing all the Dems who said Hussein had wmds. But with libs history starts today. Big Media has made it their goal to wipe out every supportive statement libs made before the war. It's like Stalin erasing Trotsky and other prominent commies from Soviet history books. It's amazing that they can get away with it, but with our current dominant lib media, anything is possible. Even erasing history.

Just another reminder that the leading Demagogues are all shameless, vile, loathsome hypocritical reptiles.

It sure is. After that rant what did the Clinton/Gore administration do? Look the other way. If any rational case can be made for U.S. government complicity in allowing or orchestrating the 9/11 attack it would be against Clinton-Gore. Ignoring numerous attacks against the U.S.; WTC in '93, two U.S. embassies, the USS Cole. Half assed attacks on terrorists that only gave them confidence and resolve; aspirin factory, camel-in-the-butt attack in Afghanistan, office building in Baghdad bombing. Waving off the Saudi offer to take Osama bin Laden. People blame the Saudis now? They were giving us bin Laden. Clinton-Gore said "Nah, thanks anyway."

Even if every charge Albore levels against Reagan and Bush I were true (and that seems highly unlikely considering the source) the Clinton-Gore administration's only difference was they deliberately antagonized the terrorists with impotent attacks and ignored direct attacks on the U.S. (rather than Saddam's attacks involvement in lesser attacks on other countries and his own people) and treated efforts to help fight terrorism as a nuisance. That easily looks like a deliberate pattern intended to invite attack.

If the tin-foil hat fits it fits the pointy heads of Dem dunces better than anyone else.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.